You make some good points that need clarification
Some of your post drives home just how valuable and special the US is. Only one of the four countries you mentioned (US, Venezuela, Columbia and Brazil) has a 235 years of uninterrupted democratic rule founded upon the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, imbued upon each and every one of its citizens by God. While there are many instanced where individuals and groups of individuals have been denied one or more of these rights due to the unconstitutional behavior of others, the Constitution has prevailed.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders;414566]I don't think anyone with half a brain and / or half an education thinks it is a good thing to have a high Gini Coefficient in any particular nation-state.[/quote]I think I have already opined on Gini and how this is a tool for political manipulation as it does not take into account any factors related to actual opportunity or the composition of GDP.
So long as the free people of said nation-state are imbued with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those that have less can and often will become among those that have more.
[quote=]High Gini Coefficients lead to large socioeconomically immobile underclasses that turn to violent crime and / or rebellion out of pure desperation for survival.[/quote]Gini coefficients do not cause anything. They are merely numbers created by cherry picking specific statistics in order to support a political agenda (that's the purpose for which Gini created it).
Socioeconomic underclasses are immobilized by lack of opportunity created by any number of factors: education, oppression, govt entitlements, etc.
[quote=]Take Brasil or Colombia for example; both states are resource rich, have (relatively) pro-business governments and some of the highest Gini Coefficients on the planet.[/quote]Excellent examples. The inequalities in access to education and opportunity in both countries are huge. In Columbia only 65% of the nation enrolls in Secondary basic education (grades 6-9). Both countries have histories rife with "man made" inequalities of the kind forced upon them by other men, not the kind rooted in human nature.
[quote=]Venezuela is another case of what can happen when all the national wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few, the rich govern with little regard for implementing reforms that benefit the lower classes and socioeconomic mobility is non-existent; the rich and upper middle class Venezuelans unfortunately got what was coming to them in form of soon to be dictator for life Hugo Chavez.[/quote]Much of the Venezuelan upper middle class was financially wiped out back in the 80s. Chavez loves to play on the politics of Gini. The situation in Venezuela is very sad.
[quote=]A situation within a democracy where 1% live like kings and the rest barely can fill their bellies is not sustainable and is certainly not desirable.[/quote]I agree. However, I am not certain that a free and just society that protects its citizens' unalienable rights can get to that point without some sort of catastrophic event (nuclear winter, etc). The nature of the US is that it constantly cycles new individuals into the category of haves.
Your point is excellent in that the unjust history, as it relates to how the wealth continued to be distributed following the original founding of each of the above three countries, was just that, unjust and lead to the long-term subjugation of the poor. This is not uncommon in many former colonies where there were abundant natural resources to be plundered by a small group of powerful individuals via the exploitation of 'dumb' cheap labor. Further, these economies have been historically based upon agrarian activities, raw natural resources and heavy industry. As these economies evolved to include more and more jobs that required an educated workforce, the educational disparities further exacerbated the situation making it even more difficult to overcome the bonds of poverty. The opportunities primarily drew from the progeny of the upper and middle classes and if need be, foreigners.
[quote=]Take a look at the current economic situation in the US; the Gini Coefficient is certainly rising, the middle classes are being decimated, and the rich get richer. This is certainly not desirable for the future economic health and domestic safety / stability of the country.[/quote]The socioeconomic stratification is in no way comparable to situations in the above mentioned countries. The US history of access to education, opportunity and wealth is unparalleled. Everyone has the opportunity to chase the American dream. Just because you are free to chase it, doesn't mean you will catch it.
[quote=]Big corporations do everything they can to cut costs by laying off decent (in terms of amount of compensation) salary and wage earning employees while the upper management continues to earn massive salaries and bonuses. There is nothing illegal about what is going on but in my opinion it is creating a situation where the the executives make six or seven figure incomes and the workers are making barely more than minimum wage.[/quote]I think that this extreme is probably most notable in companies like McDonald's and the like. I do not foresee a point in time where I will agree with the point of view that unskilled workers should get paid more simply because executives of the company are handsomely remunerated.
[quote=]It is in the interests of the rich and upper middle classes to keep the middle and working classes gainfully and (reasonably) happily employed in jobs that pay and offer enough benefits that they can live a dignified and reasonable lifestyle.[/quote]My opinion is that we are as close to a class-less society as there is. There are rich people, poor people and everything in between but other than the ruling class in DC, there really aren't classes in America. These are tools of the politics of division and alienation.
Compensation should reflect the value contributed to the organization by the employee. A fry cook does not contribute in all of the same ways that the CEO does. While they are both corporate ambassadors, the potential contribution of the fry cook is more limited than that of the CEO.
I agree, the populace is generally much happier when there is low unemployment. Unemployment is not a function of corporate decision making, it is a byproduct of macro economic forces that no one company can control. If you want to increase employment, fix the macro economic issues. You might as well give it a try, Obama has proven that he and his party are incapable of fixing them.
[quote=]People with dignified jobs that pay enough to live comfortably on do not vote for extremist politicians promising to shake up and "change" the current system.[/quote]Agreed. They also tend to be hardworking individuals willing to shoulder personal responsibility and put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. According to lots of independent polls, within that portion of American society two thirds identify themselves as conservative.
You make some good points that need clarification
The "sabe lo todo" continues to saber todo.
Free for all in Ukraine parliament
Fierce fighting between opposing legislators in Ukraine ended with 6 of them being hospitalized. Members of President Viktor Yanukovych's ruling party stormed the podium and attacked opposing members supporting ex president Yulia Tymoshenko, who is the subject of corrupt charges investigated by the legislature (actually, she is so foxy she should be allowed to do anything she wants, she puts Christina and Hilary in the lower end of the boliches).
You may laugh at these 3rd world antics, but this exactly what is needed in Washington, some good old fashioned brawling. If nothing else, we should at least get some entertainment value for our tax dollars from a Congress who has only frustrate and fail us. World Wrestling Federation style. 1-5 matches per day, winner take all, no bellyaching about gridlock. There are so many great match-ups, Vegas would go crazy. We can even lower the deficit by selling the broadcasting rights to the tv companies, ratings would blow out the roof, and interest in government would be at an all-time high. Larry King probably would come out of retirement, and interest in Oprah's coming and going would not be liken to the 2nd Coming. Govenment in Action, it would be interesting which party plays dirty or take enhancing drugs.
After all, who invented American Idol and all those Survivor shows? We are a great and civilized country, not Ghengis Khan and his marauding and sacking hordes. And don't tell me, you are not intrigued.
Who invented American Idol and those Survivor shows?
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;414600]After all, who invented American Idol and all those Survivor shows? We are a great and civilized country, not Ghengis Khan and his marauding and sacking hordes. And don't tell me, you are not intrigued.[/QUOTE]A great and civilized country maybe, but not the inventor of American Idol and many other survivor shows.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_television_series_based_on_British_television_series[/url]
Lysander
Lame conservative arguments
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 414562]Apologies for not prefacing my remarks with "Esten's dressing of 'reduce' is the beginning of the slippery slope"
So once you start reducing, where do you stop? Do you stop? Who will make sure it will stop? Who determines what is fair?
A society that tries to implement wealth redistribution on the scale that you desire cannot be free. [/QUOTE]The argument here is 'don't try to address a problem because you might create another problem'. Wow. Sounds like a good excuse for never tackling problems. Lame!
You don't have re-distribution without distribution. It is the wealthy and their lobbyists that have to a great extent determined how wealth is distributed in the first place. And we have the data that shows just how much they have profited from their engineering of the free market. It will be the citizenry who find this lopsided wealth distribution unacceptable that will determine the scope of the corrective action, through their votes.
[QUOTE]Yes and no. In many places, it is extreme. So long as that occurs within a free society where everyone can participate in the free market, so be it. I don't know that concentration of wealth within a free society can be unacceptable, so long as the previous statement is true. [/QUOTE]So even if 1% of the population had 99% of the wealth, and the other 99% had 1%, it would be acceptable as long as people are 'free'. Right.
[QUOTE]None of my opinions is mutually exclusive with the moral and ethical responsibilities that a fair and just society must bear to care for those amongst them who truly cannot care for themselves. To that point, private charity in the US is truly outstanding. We are an incredibly giving, reasonably moral society. What portion of US charitable giving comes form the bottom 50%[/QUOTE]There are tens of millions of unemployed and underpaid people who are struggling to care for themselves and their families. It is a mere theoretical argument that most of these people could go out and earn a good living. Some of course but most no. While I agree private charity is strong in the US, instead of making the poor dependent on charity, we should correct the system so there are fewer poor people in the first place.
And people with half a brain don't expect the bottom 50% to contribute significantly to charity. They are the ones in need of it. Better yet, as I said let's create a society where more of the bottom 50% earn a better living and are then less dependent on charity.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 414563]Esten, the Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. '
The point I believe all liberals are missing is while we hold all men are CREATED equal and have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no where does it proclaim from the starting point of being CREATED EQUAL that all men must REMAIN EQUAL.
The liberal mentality perverts the admirable traits of charity and good will via envy and greed of those who succeed into a means of unjustly appropriating and redistributing the fruits of the successful's labor ie 'Social Justice'. [/QUOTE]Of course. Nobody is claiming that all men should remain equal. The issue is whether wealth distribution has become too unequal, and what should be done about it. We the people have the Constitutionally protected rights to express our opinion about this issue and to advocate changes through our democratic process.
Your last sentence is more conservative drivel and bullshit. It has nothing to do with envy and greed. Liberals believe the 'free market' system isn't working as well as it could or should for the middle class and poor. Many liberals make a good living and would be glad to go along with changes / reforms that might cause us to earn somewhat less, or pay somewhat more in taxes, if it meant that more people had jobs and fewer people lived in poverty. Saying we are envious or greedy is laughable and a sign of either your ignorance or your willful distortion.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 414557]The marketplace should decide what group accumulates what percentage of the wealth, but to answer your first question: The top 10% (and everybody else) should hold whatever wealth they can accumulate by legitimate means.
Esten, the focus should be on increasing the wealth of the bottom 50% (and everybody else) by enabling them to be more productive and otherwise increase their accumulation of wealth by legitimate means.
In other words, let's increase the size of the "Wealth Pie" so that we can all be "rich", whatever that may mean to each individual. [/QUOTE]The marketplace has proven ineffective in enabling the poor and middle class to prosper along with the rich. That is because to a large extent it has been engineered by the rich for the rich. I agree we should enable the poor and middle class to earn a better living and accumulate wealth through their own effort. But this argument to 'increase the pie' is a false hope we have debated before. The pie is only so big and grows only so fast. A far better and faster approach to this goal we both agree on is to simply take corrective action to ensure wealth is distributed in a fairer manner than it is now. Not by supporting people on welfare but by creating more jobs with less uneven income distribution within the current pie.
